Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonoprazan/amoxicillin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn, no other delete arguments. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Vonoprazan/amoxicillin

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence that this package of two medications is notable. Sources are press releases (both in the article and in GNews). Fram (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Fram (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough sources in Gscholar describing clinical usage of the medication. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to some of these please? Fram (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the non-scholarly press:
 * MPR
 * FiercePharma
 * Bloomberg Law
 * Con Live (which is pretty popular in the ID community)
 * Pharm Times
 * On Google Scholar, see the Furuta paper in Digestion, the critical view on the drug by Graham in J Gastr Hep, cost-effectiveness analysis by Kajihara et al, a treatment optimization study, a study of effectiveness against BSA, therapeutic effect in presence of EtOH, effect on gut microbiota, comparison against PPI-only regimens, some controversy as to whether its effect generalizes, alternatives to when it fails, genotype specificity... I'd consider this a very well documented drug that has been commented on quite significantly in both the industry press and in academic literature. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a combination medication like amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (Augmentin), not a dual therapy. Such medications are approved in their own right and treated as a separate drug. The amount of literature goes beyond press releases. Scholarly literature looks at it from multiple aspects, including critical commentary on a potential contribution to antibiotic resistance. Industry literature is also quite significantly covering it, so I fail to see how WP:SIGCOV would not be met.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll guess I'll withdraw this AfD, but a few remarks. Not the responsability of those who replied here of course, but the article creator shouldn't create articles with only press releases as sources (and should at least add some other sources when challenged instead of some handwaving "all drugs are notable" comment). And of the sources provided here, it looks as if some are just press releases as well (the non-GS ones that is). The first one, EMPR, is at least in parts identical to this from the same day (but with a different author), and copies most of its text straight from company publications like . Not what we would normally consider an independent, reliable source. Similarly, the ContagionLive source is a rehashed press release, with many sentences copied straight from what the company provided, and very similar to the PharmacyTimes article you also provided. For non-med products, these sources would be rejected for being not independent. Fram (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, additional text and citations added. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.